And today, joining the underground .....

Fancy a pint? Join the crai­c and non-rugby topics here.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 24529
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by Dave »

Pity it wasn't Tony.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 24529
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by Dave »

Cap'n Grumpy wrote:
Dave wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 5:46 pm
Snipe Watson wrote:
Acceptance that there is a Creator God requires an entirely different worldview that places God at the centre as a supernatural being who exists in a realm beyond space and time. Space and time being part of His creation.
You may view this as conveniently packaged fairy story which is fine. I don't expect a non-believer to see things as a believer does. Nor do I believe that I can convince you through the amazing logic of my argument.
Taking the atheistic view that we are just randomly evolved bundles of cells and chemicals, by definition requires that there is no God. That is the non-negotiable starting point. Therefore there is no mutually agreeable starting point for discussion. You pick which miracle you're going to hang your hat on. Either the supernatural miracle of creation by God or the supernatural miracle of everything from nothing. Willingness to at least consider the contrary position will create a platform for discussion, but standing firmly on a hill shouting at people on another hill is pointless.
I am open to a supernatural God creating the universe. Just provide the evidence on how you're so convinced on a particular version. I'm not an atheistic, so this doesn't boil down to evolution versus Christianity. Evolutionary theory is theoretical, there many flaws and gaps in the knowledge. They can at least demonstrate how or why a particular explanation is theorised, because the scientific method demands experimentation or observation of such things.

You guys are saying not only, did (a particular) God create the universe but also you have relationship with this God. How do you logically explain this?
There are gaps in the knowledge of how many critters have evolved, but to say Evolution is theoretical seems a bit strange. Evolution is fact - it is happening all around us and for me undeniable. Yes, there are gaps in the evolutionary record, (indeed it can be like looking at a thousand piece jigsaw with 980 of the pieces missing - not easy to know what the picture is like, but some are always willing to say they know) but not gaps in the knowledge of how evolution progresses.

What I do think is a problem though is that people confuse creation with evolution. Before something evolves, it first has to be. It has to exist in a living state, and only then can it evolve and some critters have evolved a lot over the millennia, while others don't seem to have evolved much, or even at all once they have reached a certain stage of development.

The creation bit is the confusing thing though - one either believes in the miracle creation of life by a supreme being or the miracle of life out of nothing. One is no more or less miraculous than the other - but I don't blame the Nazis (or Godwin) for that.


And yes, at the time of writing, Godwin is still alive - the jury's still out though on whether Hitler is alive and well and living in Argentina (aged 140).

PS - I might be wrong! :shock:
Not strange to say evolution is theory. As scientific inquiry is based on questioning. The question should not be to establish fact as you do not know what future evidence may contradict what is currently known. Rather it is to ask if theory 'xyz' falsifiable. If the scientific inquiry can falsify the theory then it can be ruled out. More weight is added to the theory should the experimentation or observation remain unfalsified. Providing of course rigorous and robust methodology is used.

Everything is theory as we could be in a simulation.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
solidarity
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3884
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 7:00 pm

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by solidarity »

Dave wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 1:39 pm
Cap'n Grumpy wrote:
Dave wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 5:46 pm
Snipe Watson wrote:
Acceptance that there is a Creator God requires an entirely different worldview that places God at the centre as a supernatural being who exists in a realm beyond space and time. Space and time being part of His creation.
You may view this as conveniently packaged fairy story which is fine. I don't expect a non-believer to see things as a believer does. Nor do I believe that I can convince you through the amazing logic of my argument.
Taking the atheistic view that we are just randomly evolved bundles of cells and chemicals, by definition requires that there is no God. That is the non-negotiable starting point. Therefore there is no mutually agreeable starting point for discussion. You pick which miracle you're going to hang your hat on. Either the supernatural miracle of creation by God or the supernatural miracle of everything from nothing. Willingness to at least consider the contrary position will create a platform for discussion, but standing firmly on a hill shouting at people on another hill is pointless.
I am open to a supernatural God creating the universe. Just provide the evidence on how you're so convinced on a particular version. I'm not an atheistic, so this doesn't boil down to evolution versus Christianity. Evolutionary theory is theoretical, there many flaws and gaps in the knowledge. They can at least demonstrate how or why a particular explanation is theorised, because the scientific method demands experimentation or observation of such things.

You guys are saying not only, did (a particular) God create the universe but also you have relationship with this God. How do you logically explain this?
There are gaps in the knowledge of how many critters have evolved, but to say Evolution is theoretical seems a bit strange. Evolution is fact - it is happening all around us and for me undeniable. Yes, there are gaps in the evolutionary record, (indeed it can be like looking at a thousand piece jigsaw with 980 of the pieces missing - not easy to know what the picture is like, but some are always willing to say they know) but not gaps in the knowledge of how evolution progresses.

What I do think is a problem though is that people confuse creation with evolution. Before something evolves, it first has to be. It has to exist in a living state, and only then can it evolve and some critters have evolved a lot over the millennia, while others don't seem to have evolved much, or even at all once they have reached a certain stage of development.

The creation bit is the confusing thing though - one either believes in the miracle creation of life by a supreme being or the miracle of life out of nothing. One is no more or less miraculous than the other - but I don't blame the Nazis (or Godwin) for that.


And yes, at the time of writing, Godwin is still alive - the jury's still out though on whether Hitler is alive and well and living in Argentina (aged 140).

PS - I might be wrong! :shock:
Not strange to say evolution is theory. As scientific inquiry is based on questioning. The question should not be to establish fact as you do not know what future evidence may contradict what is currently known. Rather it is to ask if theory 'xyz' falsifiable. If the scientific inquiry can falsify the theory then it can be ruled out. More weight is added to the theory should the experimentation or observation remain unfalsified. Providing of course rigorous and robust methodology is used.

Everything is theory as we could be in a simulation.
We could indeed. Back in the late 90s, 'The Truman Show' was an interesting take on this. Truman only learned the truth as he was able to step outside his 'universe'. Same with dreams. We only really know we were dreaming after we waken up. Religious people have always said that we can only know reality if we are willing to accept that there is something beyond our sense perceptions. This, pretty much by definition, lies outside full inspection by scientific canons. I think many people, on both sides of the debate, now talk about signposts at best.
User avatar
solidarity
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3884
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 7:00 pm

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by solidarity »

jean valjean wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:39 pm
solidarity wrote:
Dave wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:28 pm
Hawkeye wrote:Explain infinity. If you believe in infinity then all things are possible.
Exactly. I've rarely heard a religious type express the thought they might be wrong.
If you've met very few, I'll add to that wee number. There are many things about which I could be wrong, not least my belief in a God, a key part of whose interaction with the unverse, and humanity in particular, has been described in the Bible. If I'm wrong, I'll face the consequences.

Infinity may be difficult to explain, but it's not difficult to experience. Explanations aren't all they're cracked up to be. You could say that a circle is an infinite number of infinitely small straight lines, each at an infinitely small angle to the previous one. Even if that is debatable, everyone agrees that a circle has an infinite number of lines of symmetry. Wierd, yet we experience circles every day. Difficult to explain, easy to experience.

My experience of God is not straightforward to explain, but I'm at ease with the experience.
Solids, fully respect your belief and am glad you have a relationship with your God. Please don't take this as having a go but how can you be sure that the god you have grown up knowing through the bible is the one true god? There are a huge number of religons in the world who believe in 'their god' so do you feel you have been lucky to be born into the right country, family, religion or have you looked at the others and came to the conclusion the bible is the one true message? As has been said before if there are 3000 religions and you believe in one, then we both deny the other 2999 religons. An atheist believes in just one less than you.
You're right, I can't be absolutely, 'scientifically' sure, so being a Christian is, and always has been recognised as a matter of faith. I think there's good reason to reject many of the world's religions on the pragmatic basis that they have not served their followers well and have contributed negatively to human 'improvement'. On this alone, Christianity seems to stand out from the others.
User avatar
solidarity
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3884
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 7:00 pm

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by solidarity »

Cap'n Grumpy wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 10:07 am
solidarity wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:30 pm Shirley to acuse yourself of being wrong would be heresy. You would then have to burn yourself at the stake. :shock:
Accusing one's self of being wrong is not heresy, - hearsay perhaps, but not heresy. At best it is just reasonable or understandable doubt, at worst, a lack of faith. Or perhaps those are one and the same thing. I know many believers who have had doubts, but still cling to the(ir) faith. Indeed I would contend that if one has never doubted their faith, one has either been very lucky (and I don't believe in luck), or they haven't looked into their beliefs too deeply.

Heresy is to promote something that goes against the religion, not simply lacking in belief in that religion.

And anyway, I'd rather have a burnt steak as be burned at the stake.

I would actually prefer one that wasn't burnt, but maybe that's asking too much.

Better still, would be one that is seared on the outside but still raw (but warm) inside, with a little blood still running out - "rare" I think they call it, but I prefer to describe it as one that a good vet could still revive.
Oops, didn't mean to trigger a philosophical response. You're right, any believer who never had a doubt hasn't thought very much about their faith. That's the problem with any sort of fundamentalism and we all know where it can lead to.

Even more contentiously, I can take or leave steak, lamb would be my meat of choice, it's far tastier. Now that's what I call heresy.
Bobbievee
Warrior
Posts: 1143
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:36 pm

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by Bobbievee »

I am off to read the much more interesting posts on petrol consumption
User avatar
Cap'n Grumpy
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 15647
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

Dave wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 1:39 pm Not strange to say evolution is theory. As scientific inquiry is based on questioning. The question should not be to establish fact as you do not know what future evidence may contradict what is currently known. Rather it is to ask if theory 'xyz' falsifiable. If the scientific inquiry can falsify the theory then it can be ruled out. More weight is added to the theory should the experimentation or observation remain unfalsified. Providing of course rigorous and robust methodology is used.

Everything is theory as we could be in a simulation.
Rigorous and robust methodology in evolution has been used. Evolution is fact. Period.

There may be things about it that still remain to be clarified or even discovered, but that it happens is fact.

God designed it, so it must be good too. :thumleft:
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
User avatar
Cap'n Grumpy
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 15647
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

solidarity wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:55 pm Even more contentiously, I can take or leave steak, lamb would be my meat of choice, it's far tastier. Now that's what I call heresy.
Why is that heresy? :scratch:

It's merely an opinion. Not one I share, but I defend your right to have it.

It's my wife's favourite too - she made me defend your right to it. :oops:

Must admit I enjoy most meats, and I do enjoy a nice bit of pork so long as there's enough heart-attack inducing fats left attached for added flavour.
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
User avatar
big mervyn
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 14360
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Overlooking the pitch (til they built the old new stand)

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by big mervyn »

I'd be termed "flexitarian" in the current vernacular. I'd probably be vegetarian if I lived on my own.
Volunteer at an animal sanctuary; it will fill you with joy , despair, but most of all love, unconditional love of the animals.
Big Neville Southall
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 24529
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by Dave »


Cap'n Grumpy wrote:
Dave wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 1:39 pm Not strange to say evolution is theory. As scientific inquiry is based on questioning. The question should not be to establish fact as you do not know what future evidence may contradict what is currently known. Rather it is to ask if theory 'xyz' falsifiable. If the scientific inquiry can falsify the theory then it can be ruled out. More weight is added to the theory should the experimentation or observation remain unfalsified. Providing of course rigorous and robust methodology is used.

Everything is theory as we could be in a simulation.
Rigorous and robust methodology in evolution has been used. Evolution is fact. Period.

There may be things about it that still remain to be clarified or even discovered, but that it happens is fact.

God designed it, so it must be good too. :thumleft:
It isn't a fact. It could be falsified by new information discovered in the future where factors other than natural selection/adaptation are at play. That's true scientific inquiry. It's leaving the door open so that objectivity can lead to new learning.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
pwrmoore
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11885
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:51 am
Location: East Belfast

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by pwrmoore »

Snipe Watson wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 12:28 am
pwrmoore wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 11:04 pm
Snipe Watson wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:31 pm
pwrmoore wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:59 am
Snipe Watson wrote: Tue Nov 02, 2021 5:17 pm
Okay, you're not really comparing apples with apples. If God is God, His relationship to His creation is not as simple as you appear to think it is.
If (for the sake of argument) Elon Musk were to produce a group of self-replicating robots with the ability to 'think' for themselves, make their own decisions and to build anything they could conceive, and then a number of replications later they conceived and built weapons and started to destroy everything around them. Would you consider Elon to have no responsibility for their development and actions?
Elon is still not God though. He's good, but not God.
So would you consider him responsible or not?
I'd need to hear a bit more evidence before coming to a conclusion. Rushing to judgement is foolish in my experience.

I can't help feeling that your answer has been carefully chosen to avoid painting yourself into a corner. It's a pretty straightforward choice. Either the person who created the out-of-control robots has some responsibility for what they do or he doesn't. I can't conceive what additional evidence you might require to help you decide.
Paul.

C'mon Ulsterrrrrrrrr! :red:
User avatar
Snipe Watson
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 23443
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:42 pm

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by Snipe Watson »

pwrmoore wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:07 pm
Snipe Watson wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 12:28 am
pwrmoore wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 11:04 pm
Snipe Watson wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 1:31 pm
pwrmoore wrote: Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:59 am

If (for the sake of argument) Elon Musk were to produce a group of self-replicating robots with the ability to 'think' for themselves, make their own decisions and to build anything they could conceive, and then a number of replications later they conceived and built weapons and started to destroy everything around them. Would you consider Elon to have no responsibility for their development and actions?
Elon is still not God though. He's good, but not God.
So would you consider him responsible or not?
I'd need to hear a bit more evidence before coming to a conclusion. Rushing to judgement is foolish in my experience.

I can't help feeling that your answer has been carefully chosen to avoid painting yourself into a corner. It's a pretty straightforward choice. Either the person who created the out-of-control robots has some responsibility for what they do or he doesn't. I can't conceive what additional evidence you might require to help you decide.
Sure you know I'm not unhappy being painted into a corner.v :D
Actually, it seemed to me like a fairly loaded question in the context of the discussion.
On face value, a business would have questions to answer about its products acting in such a way. I'd imagine the regulation of the industry would also require some scrutiny into the bargain.
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 24529
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by Dave »

The robots are the ones in control. The matrix documentary clearly depicts that. Come on people, wake up.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 24529
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by Dave »

On faith, just one last point so this thread can go back to pointing out celebrities who have snuffed it. I get what some are saying with faith and the little bit of doubt at times. Faith is a good concept for many. Faith ought not be mistaken, however, for knowledge. Faith is at least recognition that 'I do not know', but I am believing anyway through choice. Therefore, doubt is perfectly understandable. When it is proposed by individuals that they have a relationship with said deity. It is unclear how there would then be room for doubt. As a relationship would require, I'm sure, reciprocal communication. Otherwise, it appears as is often explained by non-theists, believers are perhaps mis-interpreting thoughts, feelings, certain experience etc as confirmation of reciprocation. This applies to all those of religious faith. There is no way of determining any experience as genuinely material, as opposed to simulation. Essentially we are all in the dark with the only certainty being uncertainty.

I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
Cap'n Grumpy
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 15647
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?

Re: And today, joining the underground .....

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

Dave wrote: Fri Nov 05, 2021 6:37 pm It isn't a fact. It could be falsified by new information discovered in the future where factors other than natural selection/adaptation are at play. That's true scientific inquiry. It's leaving the door open so that objectivity can lead to new learning.
Even if new factors other than natural selection/adaptation are subsequently seen to be at play, it doesn't change the fact that evolution occurs.

I don't see how that can be falsified. It might change our understanding a little about how evolution occurs in one or more species, but won't change the fact that it does.

Nor does that prevent objectivity leading to new learning.
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
Post Reply